Ryan Ramsey is the Libertarian Heathen. He is the Founding Father of LPF Region 4, Former President of the Florida American Guard Bold City Proud Boy. Scourge upon Marxists across the world, Host of Global Dissident Voices.

Nationalism and Newspeak

In George Orwell’s book, 1984, the language of the future socialist government was known as “Newspeak.” There is an appendix in the novel, titled “Principles of Newspeak,” It was designed as a gradually implemented policy, that was not the sole language of Oceania in 1984. By the deadline of 2050, it was to be the only language spoken, with ‘oldspeak’ retired.

There is a link in the footnotes, and I cannot encourage you enough to read it, and apply it to what you see presented in mass media. Keep it in mind when you listen to the language of the Marxist politicians, and their useful idiots in the left wing “social justice” movements.

Here are some quotes from “Principles of Newspeak ”:

“….words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them. All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink. Greater precision would have been dangerous.”

“No word in the B vocabulary was ideologically neutral. A great many were euphemisms. Such words, for instance, as joycamp (forced-labour camp) or Minipax (Ministry of Peace, i.e. Ministry of War) meant almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand, displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of Oceanic society. An example was prolefeed, meaning the rubbishy entertainment and spurious news which the Party handed out to the masses.”

“One could, in fact, only use Newspeak for unorthodox purposes by illegitimately translating some of the words back into Oldspeak. For example, All mans are equal was a possible Newspeak sentence, but only in the same sense in which All men are redhaired is a possible Oldspeak sentence. It did not contain a grammatical error, but it expressed a palpable untruth — i.e. that all men are of equal size, weight, or strength. The concept of political equality no longer existed, and this secondary meaning had accordingly been purged out of the word equal.

In 1984, when Oldspeak was still the normal means of communication, the danger theoretically existed that in using Newspeak words one might remember their original meanings. In practice it was not difficult for any person well grounded in doublethink to avoid doing this, but within a couple of generations even the possibility of such a lapse would have vanished. A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that equal had once had the secondary meaning of “politically equal”, or that free had once meant “intellectually free”, than for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to queen and rook.”

Orwell wrote this book in the 1940’s, when the communist movement in America was still underground. They called themselves Progressives at the time, which was in itself, a newspeak subterfuge. We are for progress! Our opponents are holding back progress!

Eventually, people started associating progressives with the true Marxist nature of their leadership, and expressed in their policies. In response, they started calling themselves “liberals”.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. In a classic newspeak change, they became liberals, like our founding fathers, hence, they must be the good guys!

Today, the word liberal has once again become associated with Marxist based political ideology. The word progressive is now, ironically, being revived. Who is against progress? Only you reactionary right wingers!

We see the application of newspeak everywhere. Any examination of modern leftist movements or policies, will show they all have the mark of newspeak.

I will now present a case study of a current political issue. Global warming is a great example of how the left co-opts, or even creates, issues to exploit, in order to further their goals. Often these goals have nothing to do with the issue presented.

They almost never solve the issue. In fact, they usually make the problem worse. In this manner, they can point to the opposition as the reason it failed, and continue to fake advocacy, while retaining use of whatever movement arose for their own disingenuous ends.

The modern environmental movement was founded by Marxists. Many felt the best way to attack the United States, and its strength, was to use environmental issues to pass laws that would stifle major industries like mining, manufacturing, and energy.

Those of us in the political community who actually know these activists and groups, often say “green is the new red.” Many of them even jokingly refer to themselves as “watermelons.” They are green on the outside, but red on the inside.

The first example of newspeak is contained in the names themselves, “environmental movement,” for example. “You aren’t for harming the environment are you?” See how easy that was?

The only way to save ourselves from global warming, according to the self appointed guardians of the planet, was to stop driving, raise the price for electricity, and saddle businesses with costly regulations. This would force people to reduce consumption of energy.

In order to convince the public, the first task was to enlist their comrades in education.

One of the 10 points listed in the communist manifesto, is compulsory government education. One path to become a good socialist agitator is becoming an educator. . By this method, the next generation will not have the knowledge required to resist.

Newspeak is an important part of this. It is well documented that the vast majority of people in higher education faculty hold these Marxist views. The idea of global warming was born in government funded universities, financed with government grants, to create “models,” that prove the polar ice caps will melt and drown us all.

They achieved their goal of deluding people so well, that former Vice President Al Gore was flying around in a private jet , that burns more fuel in a day than a small town in a year, living in houses that had monthly electric bills higher than most citizens use in a decade, to promote his pseudoscience in a major motion picture! The hypocrisy of this man is hard to fathom.

The trouble for the global warming crowd began around 2000. Annual temperatures started decreasing, and it was not because we used less energy{2}. Global use continued to rise, and the advent of the internet allowed skeptics to bring data to a large audience.

Last time I looked, we were at 15 years of straight cooling. How does a Marxist respond when confronted with such facts? Newspeak!

“Global Warming” became “Climate Change”. Now if the temperature is up, they are right. If it goes down, they are right.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right? Not according to the thousands of e-mails from scientists, proving a conspiracy to falsify data, in a scandal known as climategate. A couple years later thousands more e-mails were released and examined.

“Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.{6}”

The sincerity of the green movement should never have been taken seriously. It doesn’t take a degree in earth science to figure out that a factory moving to Mexico or China will have less environmental regulations, and creates more pollution.

Mandating ethanol to solve a problem that didn’t exist raised the price of corn dramatically. Hardships swept across the globe, as farmers replaced food crops with special ethanol corn. This corn was marketed by those champions of the environment, Monsanto.

The idea of using environmental issues to promote communism may go all the way back to Karl Marx himself.

“Contrary to the depiction of Karl Marx by some environmentalists, social ecologists and fellow socialists as a productivist who favored the domination of nature, eco-socialists have revisited Marx’s writings and believe that he “was a main originator of the ecological world-view”. Eco-socialist authors, like John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, point to Marx’s discussion of a “metabolic rift” between man and nature, his statement that “private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite absurd as private ownership of one man by another” and his observation that a society must “hand it [the planet] down to succeeding generations in an improved condition”

If you need more proof, look no farther than the founders and visionaries of the modern environmental movement.

In the US, notable author Murray Bookchin authored “Our Synthetic Environment” (1962), “Post-Scarcity Anarchism” (1971) and “The Ecology of Freedom” (1982), and is a leading figure in the foundation of the American environmental movement. According to his Wikipedia:

“Bookchin was born in New York City to Russian immigrants, Nathan Bookchin and Rose (Kaluskaya) Bookchin. He grew up in the Bronx, where his grandmother, Zeitel, a Socialist Revolutionary, imbued him with Russian populist ideas. After her death in 1930, he joined the Young Pioneers, the Communist youth organization (for children 9 to 14), and the Young Communist League (for older children) in 1935. He attended the Workers School near Union Square, where he studied Marxism. In the late 1930s he broke with Stalinism and gravitated toward Trotskyism, joining the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)”

Barry Commoner arose in the 1970’s, and was another founding father of the US environmental movement. From his wiki:

Commoner was born inBrooklyn, New York, on May 28, 1917, the son ofimmigrants from Russia.[4]He received hisbachelor’s degreeinzoologyfromColumbia Universityin 1937 and his master’s and doctoral degrees fromHarvard Universityin 1938 and 1941, respectively.[5]In his 1971 bestselling bookThe Closing Circle, Commoner suggested that the American economy should be restructured to conform to the unbending laws of ecology.[12]For example, he argued that polluting products (like detergents or synthetic textiles) should be replaced with natural products (like soap or cotton and wool).[12]This book was one of the first to bring the idea ofsustainabilityto a mass audience.[12]Commoner suggested a left-wing,eco-socialistresponse to thelimits to growththesis, postulating that capitalist technologies were chiefly responsible for environmental degradation, as opposed to population pressures.

In Germany, a political party “the Greens” was founded by Petra Kelly and Herbert Gruhl.

Prior to founding The Greens, Petra Kelly was educated by Marxist political scientists in Washington DC, and became a high ranking member of the SPD. According to Wikipedia:

“The SPD is a member of the Party of European Socialists and of the Socialist International, and became a founding member of the Progressive Alliance on 22 May 2013. Established in 1863, the SPD is the oldest extant political party represented in the German Parliament and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world.”
In 1989, she founded “The Federation for Social Defense”, one goal of which was “coexistence of peoples and nations in SOCIAL JUSTICE.”

Herbert Gruhl studied at Humbolt University in Berlin, which became Free University of Berlin. The very name of this institution is classic newspeak. I looked up this “Free University,” and was not surprised to find the following:

“The political struggles of the postwar period were carried into the university and led to a growing communist influence in the university.”

Around the world, you will find the same elements at the roots of these movements. The 1990s saw the socialist feminists Mary Mellor and Ariel Salleh, address environmental issues within an eco-socialist paradigm.

With the rising profile of the anti-globalization movement in the Global South, an “environmentalism of the poor”, combining ecological awareness and SOCIAL JUSTICE, has also become prominent.

David Pepper also released his important work, “Ecosocialism: From Deep Ecology to SOCIAL JUSTICE,” in 1994, which critiques the current approach of many within Green politics, particularly deep ecologists.

In 2001, Joel Kovel, a social scientist, psychiatrist and former candidate for the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) Presidential nomination in 2000, and Michael Löwy, an anthropologist and member of the Reunified Fourth International (a principal Trotskyist organisation), released “An Ecosocialist Manifesto”, which has been adopted by some organizations, and suggests possible routes for the growth of eco-socialist consciousness.

Kovel’s 2002 work, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?, is considered by many to be the most up-to-date exposition of eco-socialist thought.

Environmentalism is just one issue, presented here as an example detailing the enormous scope of Marxist co-option surrounding social and political issues, and the myriad of ways newspeak is used to promote the leftist agenda.

A key element to notice when the left champions an issue, is they cannot actually solve the problem, or they lose the ability to create the dissension they need to retain power over the group they purport to help.

Does anyone think the world has less racism toward black people because of the groups led by leftists like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? If the issues resolved themselves, they would all be out of a job.

The American “civil rights” movement was co-opted in the 1920’s by progressives with the help of their front man W.E.B. Duboise. True black leaders of the day like Marcus Garvey hated Duboise.

Booker T. Washington described the phenomena in this famous quote:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

As you encounter controlled media, listen closer. You will see that those delivering news, who also are almost totally Marxist, use newspeak to spin stories. As you listen to politicians, even the laws they write are in newspeak.

-George Zimmerman, who was part Hispanic, becomes a white man in the left wing media.

Traavon Martin, a troubled youth who enjoyed street fighting and a cocktail made with codeine called lean, and dubbed himself a “no-limits nigga,” gets shot while he has Zimmerman in full mount, beating his head into the concrete.

Media newspeak transforms Traavon into an innocent little boy with a bag of skittles, shot for no reason.

They wont even mention the Arizona watermelon tea as the beverage. That reinforces a silly stereotype that black people all love watermelon.

Hence, it was flushed down the memory hole. {4}

The modern government funded University, is now a full blown indoctrination center. “The Office of Diversity and Inclusion”, which sounds like the name was lifted right out of 1984, at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, recently published a guideline for students on how to be more “inclusive”, and also calls for students to cease using the completely normal pronouns he or she.{5}

Now that you understand newspeak, it is time to discuss how newspeak has been used to change the word “Nationalism” into a dirty word.

A Nationalist is a person who believes they have a right to form nations. The principles they organize under are what determines their merit. Nationalism is an empty vessel beyond that. All Minarchists are, by definition, Nationalists.

Murray Rothbard wrote “Nations By Consent”, exploring these rights to form national bonds and the need for Libertarians to foster them, and secession movements to form new nations.

Many of the fundamentals of libertarianism like popular sovereignty and secession are expressions of how Libertarian nations should be structured.

If we are to believe big brother, Nationalism is the philosophy of racists and totalitarians. The reality is far more complex.

To understand the leftists, and their social justice “useful idiots”, you must understand something the left does not want you to know.

Combinations of Marxism and Nationalism are behind their greatest victories. They know full well how powerful these associations are.

One of Stalin’s first books was titled “Marxism and the National Question” and in his “Socialism in One Country” edict, he espouses the idea of socialist nationalism as a way to build a nation, instead of forming around religious or ethnic ties. There are many examples of left-wing nationalism, all very successful.

-Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement, succeeded in making Cuba communist to this day.

– In Cornwall, a left wing nationalist party named Mebyon Kernow made great gains in the 2007 elections, and again in 2011. They are the third largest party in the country.

-Ireland’s Sinn Féin is about as red as they get, and received the second largest number of votes and seats in the 2015 elections in Northern Ireland.

– In Wales, a left nationalist party called Plaid Cymru , as of 2012, had 25% of Welsh seats in the European Parliament, 3 of 40 Welsh seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 11 of 60 seats in the National Assembly for Wales, and 206 of 1,264 principal local authority councillors. They also hold membership in the “European Free Alliance.” Free Alliance? Sounds like something we would want to join right? Who would oppose the Free Alliance? Do you hate freedom? This is classic newspeak. What does the EFA promote?

“The EFA broadly stands on the left-wing of the political spectrum. The Brussels declaration emphasises the protection of human rights, sustainable development and SOCIAL JUSTICE.”

-The Awami League in Bangladesh is the current ruling party and is in the top 2 parties. They have four basic stated principles. Democracy, (known as the road to socialism), followed by Socialism, Secularism, and Nationalism.

Secularism is important to Marxism. Religious, ethnic, or cultural elements, that people prize above their own lives, have always been the death of Marxist movements.

The Nationalism they promote is described in Stalin’s book referenced above. You have no God, or race, the nation is organized around mother Russia, or in this case, Bangladesh.

-The African National Congress in South Africa self describes as “disciplined force of the left”. They have ruled since 1994, following a bloody terror campaign. When big brother filtered the story to us “proles” in the west, the terrorist had become the victim. Nelson Mandela, who hung tires filled with gasoline around the necks of his political rivals and their families, is presented the Nobel Peace Prize.

-Here in the United States, Theodore Roosevelt rolled out his self-described “progressive philosophy” of “New Nationalism” in September 1910, and founded the Progressive Party. He finished second in the 1912 Presidential election, but is still revered in left wing circles. Nearly all of the platform planks outlined in his idea of new nationalism have been achieved.

-A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies

-Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.

-Limited injunctions in strikes.

-A minimum wage law for women.

-An eight hour workday.

-A federal securities commission.

-Farm relief.

-Workers’ compensation for work-related injuries.

-An inheritance tax.

-A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

-The political reforms proposed included

-Women’s suffrage.

-Direct election of Senators.

-Primary elections for state and federal nominations{7}

Nationalism in Orwell’s day was so associated with Socialist movements, he wrote an essay himself, distinguishing Nationalism from Patriotism, casting Nationalism in a negative light.

The only contemporary Nationalist movements during that time were Socialist in nature. How ironic it is to consider that the major force fighting his enemy in Socialism today are Nationalists, being subjected to marginalization using the very term he coined, newspeak!

The modern leftist motive to render Nationalist a slur has its roots in WW-2.

The rise of Fascism and National Socialism in Europe did not happen in a vacuum. They arose in opposition to a Communist or Socialist takeover.

On November 9, 1918, Emperor Wilhelm II was deposed by Socialist revolutionaries. There was some infighting, and the camp of full blown bolshevists made a play in January 1919, in what is known as the Spartacist, or January uprising. They were defeated, and Germany did not create a soviet style system, but a socialist democracy called the Weimar Republic.

The fight between the two Marxist camps continued, in the streets and in the government. The state of Germany after the loss in WW-1, and the constant fight to see whether their nation would become Socialist or Communist, gave rise to a Nationalist movement led by Hitler.

He destroyed the Communists and Socialists in Germany and vowed to destroy Soviet Russia, creating a new frontier for the German people,” Lebensraum.”

The problem was not Hitler’s Nationalism, it was that the nation was organized around race and the exlusion and dehumanization of others.

In Italy, Benito Mussolini started out his political career as a Socialist. He was expelled from the socialist party, and a radical change of heart, and founded the Fascist party. He wrote of his nationalism, and a new found opposition to class war and other left wing ideologies.

He did what so many Nationalist movements had done previously. He destroyed the Socialists and Communists, and rose to power.

He subsequently signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. It read, in part:

“recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations, not only endangers their internal peace and social well‑being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co‑operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities”

In 1945, Mussolini was captured and executed by Communists.

Mussolini organized his Nationalism around Fascist ideology, and the world rejected it.

The lesson of the 20th century is not that Nationalism is bad, but that Fascism and National Socialism are bad. Nationalism organized around either principle will fail and subject your progeny to slavery under Communism.

America’s Nationalism, organized as a Libertarian Republic, beat all 3 forms of toxic collectivism. That is the reason the American Guard advances it today.

We specifically note we are “Constitutional Nationalists”, defining ourselves by support of our original nation organized around the principles expressed in the Bill of Rights.

After WW-2 the international communists realized that the one thing that could defeat them was the bonds of culture and heritage expressed by forming a nation by a people.

While taking advantage of the power of Nationalism where they could sell it, as documented above, they began an earnest campaign to associate any non-Communist form of Nationalism with Nazis and Fascists.

The thought police started a vicious campaign to enforce yet another eerily Orwellian term, “political correctness.” Today, anyone who is not a Communist, is called a Nazi or Fascist.

They also began to promote another newspeak word, multiculturalism. It really means mono-culturalism, one culture, devoid of ethnic or national pride. It is the Nationalist who preserves cultures, but the post-war Marxist calls them racists.

Around the world, if you look behind the scenes at who is promoting mass migration and open borders. You will find a Marxist of one stripe or another behind it. They now realize they must destroy bonds of nation if they are to ever secure total control.

This is not abstract theory, the evidence can be seen across the world. The Soviets moved large numbers of ethnic Russians into Estonia, in order to alter the electorate and gain control.

This is the moment that Murray Rothbard, the godfather of Anarcho-Capitalism and the Libertarian Party, reversed his position on open borders and realized immigration can be used as a weapon.

China uses weaponized immigration in Tibet. The European socialists have succeeded better than any other, by importing 50 million Muslims, making sure no nation in Europe ever arises to oppose them again.

To a man, or woman, in the case of Angela Merkl, the architects of Europe’s immigration policies are devoted to various forms of Marxism.

In the United States, the same forces are at work. George Soros, a leading globalist Marxist, funds a group promoting illegal immigration called “Welcoming America.”

President Obama, darling of the left, is behind the “Task Force of New Americans,” formed by presidential memorandum in November of last year. It was recently exposed on a popular conservative radio show. Back in February, the Sentinel posted an audio interview with talk show host Susan Payne on the Mark Levin show.

They discussed the possible goals of the task force. Ms. Payne had listened in on three phone calls with high level government officials who discussed developing a “country within a country” by repopulating towns and cities with foreigners who will eventually take over the citizen population. They didn’t realize who she was.

One of the USA’s top “immigrant’s rights” activists, labor leader and Democratic Socialists of America Marxist, Eliseo Medina, admits that illegal immigrant amnesty has nothing to do with compassion or economics – it’s all about permanent political power for the left.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said:

“When they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.”

Medina sees illegal immigrant amnesty and voting rights as the beginnings of a “governing coalition for the long term.”

At the “progressive” America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina addressed attendees on the necessity of comprehensive immigration reform.

“So I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community. Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we’ll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future…

When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number two. “We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters”. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…

Immigration also factors into the strategy known as “Cloward-Piven,” named after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they taught leftists to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt.

That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them. What school did Obama go to again?

Since mass immigration burdens the welfare state, it pushes the strategy forward. It also shores up the left wing voter block to prevent any dismantling of socialist progress in the US.

Let us now refer to the definition of Nationalism held by actual Nationalists.

From Merriam-Webster:
loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Those who have loyalty and devotion to their nation, and think we should promote our own countries interest, as opposed to the international Marxists, are the only threat that scares the global elite.

They work daily to flood our countries with hostile foreigners instead of letting markets control migration.

They destroy our national monuments, besmirch our history, demean our heritage, attack all manifestations of national and ethnic pride, and use newspeak to marginalize the Nationalists who oppose them.

Do not believe a word of the left wing propaganda directed at Nationalism.

He paints a far more accurate description in his article of the current Nationalist movements around the globe.{10}

“Nationalism is on the rise in every region of the earth. In the face of an increasingly globalized world, the banners of tribe, tradition, and particularism are being unfolded in unabashed defiance. From Paris to Peoria the battle-cry is heard: Preserve our sovereignty!
Nationalism has had a bad reputation ever since the 1930s, when it was associated with colored- shirt-wearing thugs, militarism, and war raging across Europe, it ignited a horrific conflagration. The pan-European idea was created largely in reaction to this bloody history, and yet the result has been a counter-backlash of nationalism, a new sort that has little if anything to do with its historical antecedents.

In the West, this current wave of nationalism, for the most part, is relatively pacific: instead of promoting aggression across borders it is intent on making those borders impenetrable. The old Bismarckian nationalism was statist and super-centralist as well as expansionist; the new nationalism is often (though not always) libertarian, decentralist, and uninterested in foreign adventurism (i.e. “isolationist”).”

This quote from the work of Jeff Odgis describes the basic underpinning of “Libertarian Nationalism.”

“For the Rights of Nations”

Libertarian-Nationalism may be described as a philosophy that advocates “A nation for a every people,” and “All people for their nation.”

“The impetus for this movement is to encourage the political development of a party, or coalition within the two major parties (the preferable solution) in the U.S. that strictly adheres to a program to attend to the National Interest, with respect to the libertarian origins of the basis for this National Interest to be expressed.

Clarity comes in understanding that the Libertarian-Nationalist is both libertarian and nationalist; we believe in the sovereignty of individuals from which the sovereignty of nations stems, and by which the individual character of nations is formed.

A proper celebration of Individualism according to the libertarian ideal recognizes of persons only; a Libertarian-Nationalist recognizes it according to persons, and their respective states, in that order, with preference to dealing with the state as a body coherently expressing the will of the people.

“Nations are Individuals”

We look to the state to coherently organize the will of the people, and believe distinct peoples ought to be represented by distinct states.

“Equality in hierarchy”

Libertarian-Nationalists are opposed to the chaotic, interference-principle oriented philosophies of Multiculturalism and Internationalism. These may be described variously as national suicide or Balkanization, and these are undesirable as they oppress the will of all but a few who would pretend to manage a disaster too ill-understood to be an intentional scheme. Balkanization is a policy failure from which the World must be rescued, and our nations secured from the ambiguities, lack of representation and waste attendant to World-government schemes in all their incarnations.”

Jeff gets very close to the way I view it. I believe this philosophy is expressed through our Constitution, and that we should restore it.

In March, 2015, a blogger known as the “Libertarian Realist” summed up the subject of libertarianism and nationalism very succinctly;

“Libertarians need nations. No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has ever brought down a government. Nobody in power fears being overthrown by anarcho-capitalists. But nationalists have overthrown governments. Nationalists do strike fear into the hearts of the ruling elites of many countries. Nationalism is powerful because it is more than a set of abstract ideas. Nationalism harnesses the power of a population’s identity and concrete interests.
Libertarian nationalism is freedom through power. Without nationalism, libertarianism is little more than the weak pleadings of inefficacious idealists. With nationalism, libertarianism becomes an ideological force with the tangible capability of sustaining itself.

Libertarians need nationalism. Nationalists need libertarianism. And libertarian nationalism needs a biocentric metaphysic. A nationalism based solely on faith or tradition or language or historical borders gives leftists the ability to posture as the champions of science, progress, and a better future. In reality, so-called progressives are the arch enemies of a free and open society.”

This is no longer philosophy, but science.

Time magazine published a recent article that tears down the foundations of the social justice movement{11}. It proves there is a biological basis for nations based around similar ethnicities, and furthermore proves distinct nations within a race are encoded in our DNA. Our culture is in our genetic code. The article states:

“New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations.”

“Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race.”

“What might be the role of these brain genes favored by natural selection? Edward O. Wilson was pilloried for saying in his 1975 book Sociobiology that humans have many social instincts. But subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are inherently sociable. From our earliest years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules and punish those who violate them. Later, our instincts prompt us to make moral judgments and to defend our group, even at the sacrifice of one’s own life.
Anything that has a genetic basis, such as these social instincts, can be varied by natural selection.”

“Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. But if that’s so, why is it apparently so hard for tribal societies like Iraq or Afghanistan to change their culture and operate like modern states? The explanation could be that tribal behavior has a genetic basis. It’s already known that a genetic system, based on the hormone oxytocin, seems to modulate the degree of in-group trust, and this is one way that natural selection could ratchet the degree of tribal behavior up or down.

Human social structures change so slowly and with such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work. Modern humans lived for 185,000 years as hunters and gatherers before settling down in fixed communities. Putting a roof over one’s head and being able to own more than one could carry might seem an obvious move. The fact that it took so long suggests that a genetic change in human social behavior was required and took many generations to evolve.

Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. It can be highly effective: The world’s largest land empire, that of the Mongols, was a tribal organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required.

The various races have evolved along substantially parallel paths, but because they have done so independently, it’s not surprising that they have made these two pivotal transitions in social structure at somewhat different times. Caucasians were the first to establish settled communities, some 15,000 years ago, followed by East Asians and Africans. China, which developed the first modern state, shed tribalism two millennia ago, Europe did so only a thousand years ago, and populations in the Middle East and Africa are in the throes of the process.”

In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, the economic historian David Landes examines every possible factor for explaining the rise of the West and the stagnation of China and concludes, in essence, that the answer lies in the nature of the people. Landes attributes the decisive factor to culture.

We now have undeniable proof that culture is expressed in DNA.

The only conclusion we can now make, is those promoting multi-culturalism, and working to attack nationalism, are involved in a global genocide campaign. Using newspeak to call those resisting their machinations “ Nazis”, is irony of epic proportions. When they destroy our nations, and the cultures they sprang from, they obliterate everything that makes us unique. When globalist social engineers create artificial demographic shifts, like what we are seeing in Europe, the only result can be chaos. A chaos they will gladly offer to save you from, if you’ll just surrender the last of your liberty.

We also have undeniable proof the way we organize society evolved with us. We must retire the idea of forcing our ideas on other countries. We cannot force evolution, nor should we. The more you examine the implications the more you will realize the scope of the insanity wrought on the planet by the left.

The attitudes among some Libertarians that we should have open borders fall apart when the light of truth is shined on them, and furthermore in a libertarian world it is a non-issue.

People will generally stay with their own people, that is, once we stop offering generous welfare benefits and offer free plane rides from Syria to section 8 housing in the US. Immigration enforcement they find so morally reprehensible becomes a victimless crime, there won’t be a bunch of people who even want to come here.

We must not allow Nationalism to fall by the sword of international Marxism. It is under attack, and subject to newspeak, because it is a grave threat to those who want a one world Marxist government.

The resurgence of Nationalism has nothing to do with racism or fascism. Quite the contrary, it is bringing people together from across the globe.

There are people in every country on earth who are fighting to preserve their culture from the globalist onslaught, that seeks to create a world of milky brown debt slaves, devoid of any pride or the motivation to resist. If they achieve their goal, the gulags and mass graves will be our homes, and our children will not even speak the oldthink language of our philosophers and heroes.

I offer my hand in friendship, and my heart in solidarity, to Nationalists around the globe. I want all of us to keep our land, fly our flags, and continue the work handed down by our fathers, and their fathers before, on back through time.

We each, in our own lands, form the latest link in the chain of our history. We will not be the weak link that allows millennia of advancement to be destroyed by this murderous rabble.

We must destroy the Marxist institutions that plague our planet, and their PC thought police.

The greatest threat to freedom on the earth is the philosophies of Karl Marx. Over 100 million were killed last century. It stops here.

Newspeak is a foreign language to me. The truth is simple when delivered in English: